So, I haven't been a regular blogger... but to be honest, I'm lazy so I need to get worked up enough to want to write. I got worked up over the whole Big Soda Ban thing in NYC, and this actually is a wee bit related.
In the 6/21/12 edition of the New York Daily News, there was an article about how a children's advocacy group (A Campaign for Children) dismissed Mayor Bloomberg's claim that the ban would help reduce the obesity rate in the city's children. The group states that the ban will not reduce childhood obesity, but that proposed budget cuts to children's after-school programs would lead to higher rates of obesity. The mindset is that without after-school programs, kids will go home, sit around being lazy and get fat. Therefore, the City needs to provide the same, and even more funding, to these programs.
QUESTION: Where does the City get the $$ for these programs? From taxpayers! The money doesn't just magically appear. Mind you, the proposal is to reduce the City's funding from +$91 million to +$73 million annually.
The children advocacy groups across the board, and each individual project, cries that the City needs to provide these programs, in many cases, at no cost to the families because the families are already struggling to make ends meet. They can't afford to pay for their kids to have whatever it is the program is providing to their children.
Now, I am not, in any way, suggesting that children should be left to fend for themselves. However, if I wanted to take on the financial responsibility of a child, I would have given birth to a child. I am tired, so very tired, of the city, state and federal government usurping a ridiculous percentage of my income as taxes, when I get nothing in return.
As a single person with no dependents, I have less chance of getting any kind of financial assistance as a snowball's chance in hell. I have to pay full rent, all by myself. My rent, by the way, will be going up yet again when my lease is up. I have to pay for my Metrocard, all by myself. I have to pay Con Ed, all by myself. (Sidebar: no one has been able to explain to me why the charges for the delivery of my electricity are HIGHER than the charges for the actual electricity I use. I live in a studio apartment, most of my time at home is actually spent sleeping, yet my electric bill is still $60-$70 per month in the winter, and can get as high as $250 a month in the summer when my A/C is on!) I pay for all of my own groceries. I can't qualify for any kind of assistance, whether it be food stamps or EBT, or even some sort of subsidy to buy local fruits/veggies. I get NO RELIEF, NO ASSISTANCE whatsoever to help me stretch my dollars.
Last night, there was a vote regarding whether or not there could be increases to rent stabilized units. Advocates for renters wanted a rent freeze, citing the continued economic woes and steady past increases in rents. Landlords wanted upwards of 5-9% to help offset costs for repairs and maintenance, and increased heating costs. They met in the middle, approving a 2% increase on 1 year leases and 4% on 2 year leases.
You know what would have been nice? A rent freeze for tenants, with the City offering to provide subsidies to the landlords to help with the costs of the repairs and heating costs. That way, those of us already struggling to make our rent won't be further burdened, but landlords would also have some relief from having to cover the higher costs.
I would have taken money FROM the after school programs. Why, you ask? Well, let me tell you why. First of all, e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e gets a benefit, not just people with kids. Trust me when I tell you as a single person, my money spends as quickly as a person who has kids. Now, I am not leaving all the little kiddies hanging out to dry. So many non-profits pay some pretty significant salaries to Fundraisers. Let them start earning that salary. There is a TON of money in NYC... most of it being held by that elusive 1%. Plus, there are major corporations. Whether private citizens or corporations, they have to give money away in order to reduce the taxes they pay (a whole other issue.... but I digress....) The funds that are reallocated to my little rent resolution can be replaced by private donations. And let's be honest... of all the various charitable organizations out there, CHILDREN'S charities get the most money and support.
What isn't replaced by private donations can, AND SHOULD, be replaced by the parents of the children utilizing the after school programs. Yes, I said that the parents of the children who use the programs should pony up some money for said programs. I don't care if it's $5, and if it is a hardship. Pay to play. Period.
The number of single parent households has exploded. I am so disgusted at the general opinion of so many women that they "don't need no man" to take care of their children. (Coincidentally, the next thing they spew out of their mouths is usually that the dead beat loser man doesn't take care of his child... but again, I digress.) Please. The next one I hear brag about how they're raising that child all on her own, I am going to correct her to explain that although Daddy may or may not be providing for that child, I and every single taxpayer are paying her child support. That "free" Metrocard each child gets? That's not free! My tax dollars are paying for that. That free lunch your kid qualifies for? That's not free! My tax dollars are paying for that lunch. The after school programs that you are demanding for free? Those aren't free! My tax dollars are paying for them. So that YOU don't have to arrange for a baby sitter for YOUR child/children.
Now, I know it sounds like I hate kids, but I don't. I am not saying that there should be no public funding for these things. These kids, regardless of their economic, social, and/or familial circumstances, did not ask to be born. And I do believe that as a community, we ALL have a stake in a child's upbringing.
But I also know first hand that hard decisions have to be made when we're talking about money. Spent money is gone. Hence the word, "budget". We are all struggling out here.
Everyone has a right to become a parent, if they so choose. But with rights come responsibilities. I understand everyone has a back story. But keeping it real and being honest, I have a real hard time feeling bad for a woman with 5 kids, by 3, 4 or 5 different men, crying how she need help to feed her babies. She should have taken her ability to provide for those children into account before she laid down with those men and let them cum inside her. Period. And while I do not feel those children should have to "pay the price" for her irresponsibility, I shouldn't have to pay the price either.
So what's my point? While I support some public funding for after school programs that are so desperately needed by so many children, there's just not enough money to assume most or all of the financial burden for the programs. My point is, to the various advocacy groups (not just children's advocacy groups), YES, the work that the groups provide is important and worthy of support. But there's only so many dollars that are available. Everyone can't have everything and all for free. It's just not realistic.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Bloomy's War Against Soda
So, Mayor Bloomberg has declared a war against sugary drinks, mostly soda. His goal is to ban such beverages that come in sizes of more than 16 oz.
I understand the rationale behind the move... I really do. The obesity rate in this country is skyrocketing. Kids (as well as adults) are getting fatter and fatter, and lazier and lazier. Whereas visits to McDonald's were a periodic treat when I was a kid, they are daily (sometimes multiple times per day) occurrences in most families. Even Happy Meals have changed. When I was a child, a Happy Meal consisted of a hamburger (or cheeseburger), a small fries, cookies and a small soda. Now, there's not only a Happy Meal but a Big Kid's Meal, which has a DOUBLE cheeseburger, more fries, a bigger soda. Probably cookies or a sundae too. The thing is... children that are 4, 5 and 6 years old are eating Big Kid's Meals.
What does this have to do with sugary drinks? It's all part of the same problem. We can supersize everything. Instead of a 12 or 16 oz soda, we can get a 32 oz soda. Used to be that we could stop at the gas station or convenience store for a 12 oz can of Coke or Pepsi. That morphed into a 20 oz bottle... which morphed into a liter bottle (you know, for a family). Now we can get 1.5 liter bottles for ourselves (because the 1 liter bottle is too small) or a 3 liter bottle.
Every week, at least once a week, there's an article in the newspaper or on TV news about weight and health issues. There's how many "reality" TV shows now about weight loss? The Biggest Loser is (to the best of my knowledge) the grandfather of them all. The thing is, these shows expose many of the ways that society contributes to this plague on humanity. We see how many calories are in the beverages we choose, whether it's sugar-filled Kool Aid, soda, beer, wine, alcohol, fruit juices... whatever. The number of calories we DRINK, on top of the calories we eat??? Shocking to say the least.
To that end... here in NYC, if you go to chain restarants, calorie counts are, by law, printed on the menus. And trust me when I tell you it was quite the rude awakening... at least to me, and just about everyone I've talked to about this. Call it wishful thinking, but I terribly underestimated the number of calories in... well... everything. Everyone thinks salads, for example, are healthy... yet many of the salads that are offered up as a healthy alternative have more calories than some burgers, chicken and/or fish dishes. But i digress....
So, we have calories printed on the menu. And yes, to some degree, that has resulted in behavior changes. Maybe people choose to get a small or medium fries instead of a large fries. Maybe they leave the cheese off their sandwich. Some still order that double quarter pounder with cheese value meal, super size, with a Diet Coke. Each person who places their food order, whether at a fast food joint or a sit down restaurant, makes their own personal choices. Personal choices.
Which brings me to another point... Diet Coke. Diet Pepsi. Sugar free Kool Aid. Crystal Light. Diet Snapple. All of these have something in common... NO sugar. So these beverage options will be exempt from Bloomy's wrath. Right?
EXCEPT that dieticians, doctors, health enthusiasts alike all condemn these diet/sugar free drinks. ALL of them. They are no healthier, and in many ways worse choices, than their sugary counterparts. So why not ban these as well?
In fact, most doctors and health professionals agree that unprocessed foods and drinks are the only GOOD choices for people to make. Eat fresh fruits and vegetables instead of canned or frozen. Lean cuts of meat (IF you feel the need to eat meat at all). Drink lots and lots of water. Maybe some milk if you must (and did you realize MILK has sugar in it??), but almond or coconut milk, or soy milk, would be better. Even though those are, I think, processed alternatives... and the more processed something is the worse it is for us health-wise....
Geez, I have really talked myself into a circle here, haven't I? But isn't that the point? Everything that's good for us, if you look long and hard enough, isn't always going to be good for us. But that mean that stuff that's bad for us really is bad? Maybe. Kind of.
Sugar, I believe, is bad for us. It really is. But what's the difference between the sugar that's found in Coke or Pepsi or Sprite or Dr. Pepper or Gatorade or Red Bull or Kool Aid or some of those "energy" drinks, and the sugar that's found in alcohol? or candy? or hot chocolate? or cookies? or cake? or cupcakes? or brownies? or ice cream? or frozen yogurt?
Super sizing at McDonald's is bad. It IS bad! And does anyone really need a liter, or 2, or 3, of Coke? Probably not. But do we need the King Size Hershey's? Pints, quarts, half gallons or gallons of ice cream? Look at the size of cupcakes from Crumb! Are we still going to have the freedom to buy a bottle of booze or wine? They are, after all, more than 16 oz, and FULL of sugar!
Although it may appear that I've kind of digressed a bunch and talked in circles, at the end of the day, I have to concur that I understand that obesity is killing us. How can I not concur when I have struggled with my weight my e n t i r e life? But I don't know that this ban on soda or sugary beverages is or can be effective. For the sake of arguments, let's say that ALL non-plain-water beverages are banned and no one ever drinks a drop of them again. We still get to buy burgers and pizza and fries and cake and cookies and ice cream and a whole host of other sugary, evil, fattening, fried foods. We are still a lazy lot of people, overall. We still spend the majority of our time on our butts at work, sitting in a car or on a train or on a bus, at the movies, sleeping, etc. We are under-active overall. So, how is banning the purchase of a 20 oz bottle of Coke going to solve the problem of obesity? It simply will not.
I understand the rationale behind the move... I really do. The obesity rate in this country is skyrocketing. Kids (as well as adults) are getting fatter and fatter, and lazier and lazier. Whereas visits to McDonald's were a periodic treat when I was a kid, they are daily (sometimes multiple times per day) occurrences in most families. Even Happy Meals have changed. When I was a child, a Happy Meal consisted of a hamburger (or cheeseburger), a small fries, cookies and a small soda. Now, there's not only a Happy Meal but a Big Kid's Meal, which has a DOUBLE cheeseburger, more fries, a bigger soda. Probably cookies or a sundae too. The thing is... children that are 4, 5 and 6 years old are eating Big Kid's Meals.
What does this have to do with sugary drinks? It's all part of the same problem. We can supersize everything. Instead of a 12 or 16 oz soda, we can get a 32 oz soda. Used to be that we could stop at the gas station or convenience store for a 12 oz can of Coke or Pepsi. That morphed into a 20 oz bottle... which morphed into a liter bottle (you know, for a family). Now we can get 1.5 liter bottles for ourselves (because the 1 liter bottle is too small) or a 3 liter bottle.
Every week, at least once a week, there's an article in the newspaper or on TV news about weight and health issues. There's how many "reality" TV shows now about weight loss? The Biggest Loser is (to the best of my knowledge) the grandfather of them all. The thing is, these shows expose many of the ways that society contributes to this plague on humanity. We see how many calories are in the beverages we choose, whether it's sugar-filled Kool Aid, soda, beer, wine, alcohol, fruit juices... whatever. The number of calories we DRINK, on top of the calories we eat??? Shocking to say the least.
To that end... here in NYC, if you go to chain restarants, calorie counts are, by law, printed on the menus. And trust me when I tell you it was quite the rude awakening... at least to me, and just about everyone I've talked to about this. Call it wishful thinking, but I terribly underestimated the number of calories in... well... everything. Everyone thinks salads, for example, are healthy... yet many of the salads that are offered up as a healthy alternative have more calories than some burgers, chicken and/or fish dishes. But i digress....
So, we have calories printed on the menu. And yes, to some degree, that has resulted in behavior changes. Maybe people choose to get a small or medium fries instead of a large fries. Maybe they leave the cheese off their sandwich. Some still order that double quarter pounder with cheese value meal, super size, with a Diet Coke. Each person who places their food order, whether at a fast food joint or a sit down restaurant, makes their own personal choices. Personal choices.
Which brings me to another point... Diet Coke. Diet Pepsi. Sugar free Kool Aid. Crystal Light. Diet Snapple. All of these have something in common... NO sugar. So these beverage options will be exempt from Bloomy's wrath. Right?
EXCEPT that dieticians, doctors, health enthusiasts alike all condemn these diet/sugar free drinks. ALL of them. They are no healthier, and in many ways worse choices, than their sugary counterparts. So why not ban these as well?
In fact, most doctors and health professionals agree that unprocessed foods and drinks are the only GOOD choices for people to make. Eat fresh fruits and vegetables instead of canned or frozen. Lean cuts of meat (IF you feel the need to eat meat at all). Drink lots and lots of water. Maybe some milk if you must (and did you realize MILK has sugar in it??), but almond or coconut milk, or soy milk, would be better. Even though those are, I think, processed alternatives... and the more processed something is the worse it is for us health-wise....
Geez, I have really talked myself into a circle here, haven't I? But isn't that the point? Everything that's good for us, if you look long and hard enough, isn't always going to be good for us. But that mean that stuff that's bad for us really is bad? Maybe. Kind of.
Sugar, I believe, is bad for us. It really is. But what's the difference between the sugar that's found in Coke or Pepsi or Sprite or Dr. Pepper or Gatorade or Red Bull or Kool Aid or some of those "energy" drinks, and the sugar that's found in alcohol? or candy? or hot chocolate? or cookies? or cake? or cupcakes? or brownies? or ice cream? or frozen yogurt?
Super sizing at McDonald's is bad. It IS bad! And does anyone really need a liter, or 2, or 3, of Coke? Probably not. But do we need the King Size Hershey's? Pints, quarts, half gallons or gallons of ice cream? Look at the size of cupcakes from Crumb! Are we still going to have the freedom to buy a bottle of booze or wine? They are, after all, more than 16 oz, and FULL of sugar!
Although it may appear that I've kind of digressed a bunch and talked in circles, at the end of the day, I have to concur that I understand that obesity is killing us. How can I not concur when I have struggled with my weight my e n t i r e life? But I don't know that this ban on soda or sugary beverages is or can be effective. For the sake of arguments, let's say that ALL non-plain-water beverages are banned and no one ever drinks a drop of them again. We still get to buy burgers and pizza and fries and cake and cookies and ice cream and a whole host of other sugary, evil, fattening, fried foods. We are still a lazy lot of people, overall. We still spend the majority of our time on our butts at work, sitting in a car or on a train or on a bus, at the movies, sleeping, etc. We are under-active overall. So, how is banning the purchase of a 20 oz bottle of Coke going to solve the problem of obesity? It simply will not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)